Author
Topic: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2] (Read 78955 times)

I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).

Agreed on that, I think a 16-50 f4 with IS would be an ideal outdoor lens for hiking for example, especially if they can keep the size and weight similar to the 17-40. If it comes into being it will be on my list to replace the 17-40, assuming it's an improvement optically.

I just bought a 17-40L. Whoops. Looks like ill be using it for along time.

Well, this is all conjecture anyway. Even IF Canon announces the lens this autumn it's a fairly safe bet to say you won't be able to get your hands on it for 12 months at least! Gives me longer to save up

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

But the IS will certainly have some benefits for a handheld video, or lowlight photography when you don't have/ can't use a tripod. Of course it can't help freeze subject movement, but equally, f2.8 isn't the best aperture for a typical landscape shot anyway, so it's always going to be a compromise. I'd rather have the IS available than not- of course, how implementing it affects pricing is another matter!

Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?

+1. All I want is a sharp (across the entire frame) 17mm that can take filters. Preferably f/2.8, but I'd take f/3.5. WHY DOESN'T THIS LENS EXIST?

Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?

+1. All I want is a sharp (across the entire frame) 17mm that can take filters. Preferably f/2.8, but I'd take f/3.5. WHY DOESN'T THIS LENS EXIST?

Soo.....I just remembered about the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5. Problem is, it doesn't really excite me. I feel as if it needs just a little something extra. If Canon or another manufacturer can replicate the Zeiss performance (or rather come within reason) and simply give it autofocus I'd pull the trigger for what the Zeiss sells for now ($1400). ESPECIALLY if they could make it a 2.8.

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

True, but a little water blur and even some leaf blur from a single shot isn't always so bad and it's not like IS gives you 10 stops to where you are holding really long exposures.

There are lots of times where you don't want to bother with a tripod or can't.

I nabbed an f/9, 50mm at 1/20th the other day with IS in a deep forest and only had to go to ISO400 (i.e. right before the table starts falling out for Canon DR (of course with Nikon I'd had already traded away two stops, maybe Canon is better, I didn't lose two stops going ISO100 to ISO400 ).

Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.

Interestingly, with your friends setup, it's the lens which is the limiting factor there, not the camera. Very few lenses can match the IQ demands of a 35+ mp sensor.A TS-e 17 will out resolve nearly every other wide lens and with its movements, one can cover an effective 12.5mm focal length if you are prepared to tripod, shift and stitch. It's certainly a nice technique for great panos.The Nikkor 14-24 is good at shooting lens charts but not so useful shooting landscapes imho compared to a 16-35IIL. The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL. The extra 2mm at the wide end can usually be nixed by moving a little further back and it's a small benefit vs the problems fitting a polariser and ND filters are compared to the ease of a 16-35IIL.In my opinion both the TS-e 17L and 16-35IIL are better landscape optics than the Nikkor 14-24....unless you liek to shoot brick walls or lens charts that is ;-D

I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.